The recent AIPAC annual conference brought with it the largest ever Jewish presence in protest. A group of more than a thousand young Jewish protesters were led by IfNotNow, an anti-occupation group that garnered attention last year when one of its members, Simone Zimmerman, was fired by the Sanders presidential campaign. Since then, IfNotNow has remained active in the Israel-Palestine scene, gathering more support from young Jews with each action. The latest protest at AIPAC was the culmination of its efforts.
A great deal of the attention IfNotNow has been gaining has to do with two interrelated issues: its ability to mobilize Jewish youth against the occupation; and its approach to the usual questions pertaining to Israel-Palestine. The formulation with which IfNotNow addresses those two concerns is straightforward. It is against the American Jewish establishment’s support of the occupation. All other matters that relate to Israel-Palestine (the Palestinian right of return, for example) are explicitly beyond its consideration, and garner neither praise nor condemnation on its part.
This extremely flexible arrangement is the source of IfNotNow’s large membership. It allocates space for both liberal Zionists who find their place in J Street, non-Zionists who are best represented by Jewish Voice for Peace, and anyone else in-between. Unlike other groups, participation in IfNotNow does not depend on whether one sees the occupation as a perversion of an otherwise ideal Israel, or as another iteration of Israel’s colonial nature. Disliking the occupation is all that matters. This is how IfNotNow made possible the largest ever Jewish presence against AIPAC.
Nevertheless, IfNotNow’s versatility lends itself only to matters of ideology. While it advocates for an end of the Israeli occupation from which Palestinians mainly suffer, Palestinian involvement is minor, and formal relationship and coordination between IfNotNow and Palestinian groups is virtually non-existent. This doesn’t preclude that IfNotNow members may individually engage with Palestinians. But IfNotNow itself, as a whole, has not made a substantial effort on that front.
The reasons behind this are understandable. The American Jewish establishment has so far tended to treat its support for the occupation as an item for internal discussion within the community. It is far easier for IfNotNow’s members to approach other Jews on those grounds than it would be to talk to them as one part of a conglomerate of Palestinian rights advocates who, mostly, are outsiders to the community.
So far this has proven true. IfNotNow’s relatively large size denies the American Jewish establishment the chance to dismiss it as a fringe group of the Jewish community, as it does with Jewish Voice for Peace. And the fact that it is made up only of members of the Jewish community makes it difficult for the same establishment to ignore IfNotNow’s demands as outside pressure. IfNotNow’s target audience has no option but to acknowledge their presence as a result.
However, it is precisely the lack of association with Palestinians that makes me and many other Palestinian organizers in North America feel uneasy about IfNotNow. It is simply disingenuous to push for the well-being of Palestinians without formally including them in some way.
IfNotNow’s leaders are involved enough for them to be aware of this issue. It is easy to see why they would want to continue adopting their current approach given how cautious their target audience is with external pressure. But IfNotNow must soon realize that challenging the American Jewish establishment’s apprehensive attitude towards Palestinians is, in fact, part of its overall objective of challenging their support for the occupation. Not doing so will risk alienating the very people for whom IfNotNow advocates, and undermining its effect in the long run. As I write this, and to its credit, IfNotNow seems to be recognizing this hurdle.
But there are other concerns. IfNotNow’s flexibility on matters other than the occupation invokes similar caution. It dices up the elements of Palestinian liberation as most Palestinians tend to identify them: an end to the occupation; an implementation of the right of return; and equality between Israelis and Palestinians. Most advocates of Palestinian rights have so far taken these goals as one package. IfNotNow treats these them as separate conversations to be had later. In doing so, it grants validity to the idea that they are more minor, a view with which most Palestinians would not agree.
Still, it cannot be denied that, as things stand, IfNotNow carries an overwhelmingly positive affect on the conversation surrounding Palestinian rights within the Jewish community, and that it is doing so because of its narrow focus. Yet, for IfNotNow to remain true to its ideal of Palestinian liberation, and to continue salvaging the greatest value from its effort, it has to constantly adapt to the changing level of support the American Jewish establishment harbors for Israel’s occupation. As this support hopefully wanes and the occupation becomes less and less of a taboo subject, IfNotNow must be ready to raise other issues pertaining to Palestinian rights into the conversation.
The first step in that process is to not guide members away from discussing other elements of Palestinian liberation amongst themselves, but to encourage them to do so and to create the space for those questions. The hope is that the individuals within IfNotNow – be they Liberal Zionists, anti-Zionists, or anything else in between – would be able to reach some sort of consensus on those elements and how to approach them. For these discussions to break new ground, they will have to happen with some degree of meaningful Palestinian input.
IfNotNow is a very effective group. It has managed to ignite a stagnant conversation within the American Jewish community. For myself and many other Palestinians, their work is a cause for refreshing optimism. But it would be wrong to assume that they are without blemish. To succeed, and to succeed well, IfNotNow should begin talking to Palestinians, not in a way that takes away from their potency as an anti-occupation group working within the Jewish community, but in a manner that guides it.
@Yazan
Your article is pretty similar to another recent article from a JVPer: https://972mag.com/aipac-protests-showed-american-jewish-activism-at-a-crossroads/126318/
I think you are misunderstanding INN. INN is not about Palestinian liberation first and foremost. It is about Jewish morality first and foremost. Palestinian oppression is just the particular sin that Jews are collectively engaging in now. If it were excessive gambling and the Jewish community were institutionally corrupted by gambling interest and showing indifference to the negative effects of gambling on people’s lives little about INN other than the particulars of the moral call would need to change. Judaism doesn’t have the concept of a revival exactly. Baalei Teshuvah is the closest concept and it really means a call to observance not a call to repentance. But these kids are American and thus picked up American norms even religiously. So IMHO you should think of INN as primarily a Jewish revival movement not primarily as a Palestinian liberation movement. This is going to sound harsher than I mean it too: INN is not about you, you are the object of the conversation not the subject.
There is a funny video that captures this dynamic when it happens accidentally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm_93h4GJhY In the case of INN I think it is more intentional than accidental though they wouldn’t phrase it quite as bluntly as I’m doing here.
That’s very different than JVP where the political oppression and unifying Jews with the oppressed not the oppressors. JVP does want to be in solidarity with Palestinians unlike INN. It is not because of INN’s narrow focus that it is effective, rather it is because of its internal focus that it is effective.
The Palestinian diaspora is angry. There is a huge difference in tone between:
Palestinian Solidarity: “You are evil and wicked invaders”
INN: “You are too good a person to countenance these evil and wicked acts”.
They can’t be in solidarity and be totally off message to that extent. It isn’t about policy differences.
— American Jewish establishment’s apprehensive attitude towards Palestinians
Now we are moving further to the right. Were INN to be coordinating with Palestinians institutionally they would be seen as traitors by mainstream organizations. Part of the reason they are seen as legitimate is that they keep the debate internal to the Jewish community. I may object to the Bush / Obama war on terror and am free to lobby other Americans regarding my objections. If I coordinate those objections with Al Qaeda that moves from being dissent to possibly criminal. And I don’t mean that just in terms of terrorism, same logic would apply to say coordinating antiwar activity with the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war.
I think you may be misunderstanding the mainstream Jewish community. It isn’t apprehension it is seeing you are the opponent if not the enemy. The Jewish mainstream isn’t apprehensive at all with regard to engage with Palestinians but the see you as proxies for the Israel Arabs, West Bankers and Gazans while they are proxies for the Israelis. They have no interest in engaging with you from a place of solidarity. They might have interest in engaging from a place of negotiating conflicting interests and seeing what sorts of win-win deals can emerge.
The occupation is not a taboo subject. Rather the occupation in theory (I’m over simplifying a bit since I happen to think this isn’t really an occupation but that’s another topic) is often strongly supported by the Jewish mainstream, until recently more than it was by mainstream Israelis. What is a somewhat taboo subject is the inhumanity required to maintain the occupation.
INN could be really valuable in raising the issue of the inhumanity of the occupation. Where Palestinians could be really valuable is negotiating a believable alternative vision acceptable to Israelis and mainstream Jews.
Oh I agree completely. There’s an interview with an IfNotNow leader where they keep asking her what about the Jewish State, and finally, “Do you believe in a Jewish State”. It’s a valid question after she bashes the occupation for several minutes – and she answers, “Yes I believe in a Jewish State.” It’s actually pretty funny, because you can’t have it both ways. It can’t be Jewish. So again, you’re exactly right to question INN’s true agenda, even though as you point out – the movement is VERY good for restoring Palestinian rights. It’s a case of “careful what you wish for” – for both sides. (INN is basically a socialist front group, but fine haha.) I’m enjoying this all immensely!
Just a reminder there also are tens of millions of gentile Americans, many of them pro-peace, who are opposed to Israeli influence in our political system, it’s threatening and driving from office politicians who oppose it, and its machinations to drive us into wars, in Iraq, now in Syria, and of course against Iran. These are wars that already have cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and could lead to nuclear war.
Were all glad to see that nonviolent action by groups like If Not Now are informing Jews of a different perspective on the occupation and sowing necessary division in the Jewish community that provides room for new power centers. (Though it is a bit troubling one long video of the event showed that many INN participants stated they were “not supposed” to talk to media and only media people should be interviewed; other Jews obviously ignored that mandate and freely opined.)
So let us make it clear Americans of many stripes, left, right and libertarian, do intend to keep strongly criticizing Israel’s undue influence in United States foreign policy. And we do intend investigate historical and political issues that may make INN and other groups uncomfortable. We may come up with new strategies that anger some Jewish activists, as even our local DC peace group faced opposition for supporting the right of return during our first regular AIPAC conference in 2005. Happily most Jews, left, right and libertarian, are strong and brave enough to handle this and support our efforts.
I am a fellow traveler of “if not now” and this plea for alliance and or specificity is precisely what I hope INN ignores in order to maintain a big tent of Jews. The very evocation of the hillel the elder triad from mishne Avot in the name of the organization indicates their seriousness and focus and the organization should not get more specific, it should focus on the occupation exclusively. Building alliances like you are suggesting are of a logic designed to change their focus and make them a smaller splinter group. Exactly wrong.
“[Israel] has already used weapons prohibited by international law – white phosphorous and flechette rounds against a civilian population in Gaza, and cluster munitions in Lebanon – and the world did not raise a finger”.
Gideon Levy pointing out the grotesque double standards when it comes to Zioland atrocities against civilians.
The loathsome Zio bent and bought Hillary Clinton who has been responding to the killing of innocent Syrian children and the need to protect innocent children:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/clinton-trump-syria-refugees/
She naturally had a completely different take on the issue when it came to the killing of hundreds of innocent children in Operation Cast Lead:
“When Goldberg asked Clinton whom she held responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children, she demurred, saying, “[I]t’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war.”
http://marjoriecohn.com/want-endless-war-love-the-u-s-empire-well-hillary-clintons-your-choice/
So on the one hand it is imperative to protect “Syrian babies” and its all clear fogless skys but when it comes to Zioland ,the most moral and Gaza well oh vey what can be done its all about the fog of war.